ieBlog

In this issue of the magazine, we publish several articles by leading environmental writers in Ireland on developments in economics and media and the environment over the past 10 years. It is the magazine’s 10th anniversary and we wanted to reflect on what has been happening in Ireland, and elsewhere, over this decade, expecting that there would be some things that we could celebrate or at least be satisfied with.

At the same time, we would be remiss if we did not also address what we wish was not happening in environmentalism over this period — its dark side.

Of course we wish Donald Trump had not happened, and that he had not been joined by other reactionary political leaders in undermining the good environmental things that have happened. So it is all the more distressing to find some strands of environmentalism undermining the movement from within.

One of the most contentious issues being manipulated by the Trump administration, and by many European governments, is immigration. The issue has been distilled as “us” (largely white) against “them” (largely brown), with “us” fighting to keep “them” out of “our” land. In the US, “them” are brown Mexicans, and other foreigners from south of the border, while in Europe “them” are muslim.

A disturbing expression of this conflict, implicating environmentalism, has surfaced in several of the recent mass shootings (there always seem to be “several” of these shootings). The shootings were by white men who by all accounts expressed deep anti-immigrant hostilities, reflecting Trumpian tweets. In El Paso, the suspect complained about unsustainable overuse of paper towels (good environmental position), but added that the best form of environmental action would be mass murder (not so good a position). In a shooting in Gilroy, California, at a garlic festival, the shooter complained about sprawl (good), but limited it to immigrant-driven sprawl (not so good).

Besides in the US, there was the shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, where the shooter called himself an “eco-fascist.” Not good.

The language of the shooters brings together concerns about immigration and overpopulation (overuse, sprawl). While these concerns reflect recent developments, and exploitation by Trump and others, the issues also underpinned the early conservation movement, predecessor of the larger environmental movement.

Before toxic pollution, and then climate change, dominated environmental efforts, early conservation actions focused on preserving and restoring wild nature areas. While sounding noble, and it was in part, it was often to protect a nature area not just from commercial development but also from overcrowding, especially from the unwanted, the undesirables (a/k/a Native Americans or Mexicans) who were proliferating at a fast clip.

Overpopulation and immigration were connected by some in the environmental movement who believed that all these excess people had to migrate somewhere where they would end up draining natural resources. Population control was as central to some early conservationists as saving the redwoods.

More recently the far right political groups have resurrected this thinking and argue that to protect the planet from climate change (for those on the right who believe in climate change) immigration has to be stopped and those from the overpopulated regions in particular must be stopped at the border before they overrun “our” natural resources, and generate greenhouse gases in “our” air.

Indeed, “Fox News host Tucker Carlson opined on air about the ecological impact of immigrants: ‘I actually hate litter, which is one of the reasons I’m so against illegal immigration’.” See Cagle, The Guardian, below. You may have thought Carlson was being facetious or mad, yet there was meaning in his madness.

Of course, it is simpler to limit immigration on the unfounded assumption that it will reduce emissions than it is to limit fossil fuel production and use.

While environmental groups have rejected earlier expressions of anti-immigration policies, we all need to be aware of this strand of that history which has now been recharged by the alt right. For instance when we talk about the dangers of climate breakdown creating “hordes” of environmental “refugees” from poorer, undeveloped countries —a legitimate concern —we need to be sensitive to how such talk can be misunderstood and appropriated by the alt right, and others, to support anti-immigration policies.

The latest word from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in October 2018, was issued in its “Special Report” on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

The title is a mouth full but the report raised the level of anxiety on whether we can survive the current increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs), and subsequent rise in global temperature and extreme weather events. The initial takeaway from the IPCC report was that we have just 12 years to make rapid reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions in order to have any realisitc chance of averting catastrophic climate breakdown.

Some now argue that we really have only 14 months to save ourselves.

That short span derives from the fact that the aggressive cuts necessary to stabilize global warming below 2°C must begin now. “Scientific reality makes clear that the only plausible way to preserve a livable climate — and hence modern civilization — starts with aggressive national and global cuts in carbon pollution by 2030.”

The intriguing challenge here is whether we are at risk of losing a “livable climate” or “modern civilization.” There’s a big difference, with the former sometimes called a “catastrophic loss” and the latter an “existential threat.”

Arguing about whether climate breakdown will kill millions or billions, even all those alive, is, in one respect, an academic exercise, and a waste of time. Either way, it should be stopped.

But how bad the climate gets, or may get, does make a difference. What we do, and how much we spend, to stop the climate impacts may be affected by how many people are at risk. A geo-engineered solution may be uncertain and risky and costly, and not worth the risk unless it might save billions who otherwise would be lost.

What we do, and how much we spend, may also depend on who is at risk. Often left unsaid in climate breakdown discussions is the issue of wealth and economic inequalities.

Not surprising, rich people tend to take care of themselves and allow poor people to fend for themselves, knowing full well they cannot fend for themselves. There is no reason why such a course of action will not apply when it comes to climate breakdown.

For instance, on a small scale there are instances where rising sea levels can make an established, middle-class neighborhood, like beach-front property in Miamai, no longer sustainable. The middle-class people then move to less developed areas that are higher in elevation and subject to fewer risks, but still near their precious beaches. They then gentrify the climate-safe neighborhood. Such transitions already have been identified in Miami, Florida, including in Little Haiti, a historically lower-income Haitian neighborhood about a mile back from the beach but on higher ground. In Los Angeles, it is people moving to areas with reduced risks from fires that is contributing to higher real estate prices.” See “Climate Gentrification.”

On a larger scale floodwaters swamped more than a million acres of forest and farmland in the lower Mississippi Delta six months ago, and it is still above flood stage. US Fish and Wildlife Service staff refer to it as of “biblical proportion” and “Nothing like this has ever been seen.” Farming is the linchpin of the local economy and no farming has taken place since the flood. Some farmers will survive this year from crop insurance; some will not. All the businesses dependent on farming are on edge and many are concerned that the entire local economy will not survive. As the floodwaters have not yet receded, the full extent of the damage is unknown.

It does not take much imagination to see these various conditions reoccurring frequently, and affecting wider areas, as climate impacts intensify.

Poor, vulnerable people may be wiped out or extinguished by climate breakdown while rich, well-defended people will likely buy their way to a safe haven.

But if the impacts from climate breakdown spread wide and deep through an economy, then those with more at stake in the economy may have their lives disrupted, perhaps even destroyed.

And while the poor may be left undefended in one space, they will migrate to other spaces and countries looking for their own safe havens. These environmental or climate refugees will potentially disrupt entire government structures and economies, thereby affecting even the rich.

Until we figure out how to protect vulnerable members of our communities, and vulnerable communities among our nations, from the ravages of climate breakdown, noting is settled, no one can rest.

Joe Romm, “We don’t have 12 years to save the climate. We have 14 months: The deadline for protecting our children from a ruined climate is close at hand,” Think Progress (26 July 2019). bit.ly/2GDCLIl

Talk, even actual consideration, of carbon taxes has gained currency, aided along in part by the attention paid to Green New Deals sprouting up in different landscapes. Most would agree that a carbon tax is a sensible, well-established means of moving people away from reliance on fossil fuels, by making it more expensive. Most would also agree that a carbon tax is not the only, and not always the most useful, carbon pricing mechanism. Depending on how it is structured it can be regressive, hurting the poor and vulnerable, who would have to pay higher prices for their heat and other energy needs. As usual, the rich can take care of themselves.

But carbon taxes can be a crucial step in reducing dependence on fossil fuels. So no wonder people are surprised, even shocked, to hear certain fossil fuel interests, including major oil companies like ExxonMobil, actually agreeing to, and even pushing for, the imposition of carbon taxes on their assets – coal, oil, gas.

But be very wary of such support for carbon taxes from the rich fossil fuelistas. They may be the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Their support for carbon taxes is often contingent on getting a law that provides protection for the fossil fuel companies against any lawsuit that claims they might be liable for climate change impacts. Such claims are not empty threats as we see a host of lawsuits against the oil companies alleging their products — coal, oil, gas — have caused some of the worst adverse effects from climate change.

Here is the danger of any such proposed trade-off. A law that imposes carbon taxes, and at the same time liability protections for the fossil fuel companies, can be passed with modest carbon taxes to start, with the promise to increase the tax in succeeding years, while the liability exemption is permanent. Then, lo and behold, a few years later, with a more favorable legislature or authoritarian leader, the carbon tax remains low or is repealed, while the liability protection remains.

Before you think that might be an unlikely scenario, look more closely.

A similar deal was struck in passage of the US Superfund law, known formally as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Superfund law provides for strict and joint liability for anyone who disposed of “hazardous substances” into the environment. It also provides broad Federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of “hazardous substances” that may endanger public health or the environment. To pay for these “response” actions, CERCLA created a “superfund” to provide the financial resources for the federal government to identify hazardous waste sites and clean them up with the public funds and then pursue all the responsible parties for reimbursement of the costs of the cleanup. First the site gets cleaned up, then the responsible parties are pursed for paying the costs.

Money for the “superfund” was provided by general appropriations, costs recovered from responsible parties, penalties, and, significantly, from environmental excise taxes on products falling into three general categories– petroleum, petrochemicals and inorganic chemicals.

At the same time, an exception to liability is provided by the “petroleum exclusion” under CERCLA, which holds that “petroleum” is not a hazardous substance, the term on which CERCLA liability hangs. Since CERCLA was passed in December 1980, before Reagan assumed the presidency in January 1981, it was rushed through and the legislative history is notoriously thin and unclear. But for whatever reason, or politicking, the petroleum companies got a pass on liability but had to pay their share of the excise tax to support the superfund.

Then in 1995, with the Gingrich-led Republican Congress, the tax on the chemical and petroleum industries was allowed to expire, but the protections against liability remained in place. So all the affected companies walked away from paying for any “superfund” excise tax and the petroleum industry retreated into its statutory liability exception.

Eventually the superfund dried up and cleanups were funded only from recovery of federal costs from other companies and some general appropriations. As a result, further cleanups of hazardous substance sites have been hampered.

You can rest assured that the petroleum and other fossil fuel companies will not forget nor will they ignore the deal they pulled off in the CERCLA legislation when it comes time to structure a so-called climate carbon tax bill, with liability exemptions.

The Aesop fable about the wolf in sheep clothing, who ate a number of sheep through this dissemblance, ended with the shepherd taking a fancy for mutton broth one night. He came out with a knife and killed the first sheep he came across, which happened to be the wolf in sheepskin.

Is there some analogous ending for the fossil fuel interests who try to disguise their hunger for a liability exemption by dressing it up as a carbon tax?

We shall see.

Sources

E.A. Cruden, “Oil companies slipped a present to themselves into this carbon tax plan: Fossil fuel corporations would be shielded from climate lawsuits under a proposal several are supporting,” Think Progress (20 May 2019). bit.ly/2IM5HOu

In past issues we have written about how one can, should, or should not talk about climate change. A dilemma has always been that if one tries to scare people, one might well frighten them so that they take action on climate change, or one might just frighten them away, because they are immobilized by the threats. Some lean to softening the linguistic approach on climate change, and some still prefer getting heavy handed.

Some tailor their words to the specific audience. Supporters of climate change action get the frightening version as they “know” the scary impacts are likely to be true, and this version reinforces their engagement and contributions. People on the fence — the undecided, the skeptics and deniers —get a slight nudge, hoping they will eventually come around.

We’re now seeing a shift in the use of words to talk about climate change

The shift, or tipping point, has been unfolding over the past six months or so. A “tipping point” refers to a moment or space which previously had been in balance, or stasis, but which becomes unbalanced when something is added to cause it to change significantly. In many instances a tipping point suggests a negative outcome, but it need not be, and positive outcomes can flow from a tipping point. Here we use the term, almost metaphorically, to refer to a significant consolidation, indeed strengthening, in the language used to support climate change actions after an extended period when there was a semblance of balance between those who softened their language and those who hardened their words.

We suggest this toughening of the language derives in part from the more dramatic predictions on the impacts of climate change that we have begun to hear from even the generally staid scientific community. In a recent report (October 2018), the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international scientific authority on all things related to global warming, warns that we have only 10 to 20 years to avoid the impacts of intense and more heat waves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and worse droughts and rainfall extremes. Another recent report (May 2019) for the United Nations demonstrates that humans are putting up to one million plant and animal species at risk of extinction, posing a direct threat to biodiversity across the globe.

The reports are dire, in the consequences they document and in the short period of time they tell us we have to avoid these consequences. The noted environmentalist David Attenborough, not given to exaggeration, spoke at a recent United Nations climate summit in Poland about the possible “collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world.” See Moyers article below.

These reports in and of themselves might have set the shift in motion but they were prodded along by the engagement of a youth movement that has arisen lately, across many communities. The movements are called Extinction Rebellion, or Sunrise Movement, or Childrens Trust (climate change lawsuits for youth), or Youth Climate Strike, or Alliance for Climate Education, or Youth Climate Movement, or Greta Thunberg. They bring a boldness, brashness and directness to the conversations on climate change, and at times some blistering attacks. Bill McKibben has described what is happening as a result of the youth movements as a “climate moment.”

Yet perhaps the strongest voice to be heard so far is nature itself, which has been delivering floods and droughts and firestorms, seemingly everywhere, sometimes one following the other, sometimes all at once somewhere on the globe.

So now more and more people have declared that “climate warming” is no longer accurate, nor is “climate change.” The Guardian British newspaper, one of the strongest on environmental issues, has recently announced a change in its style guide “to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.” Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are now “climate emergency,” or “climate crisis,” or “climate breakdown.” And “global heating” is chosen over “global warming.” At the same time, The Guardian has also shifted to using “wildlife” instead of “biodiversity,” which was always a rather abstract term.

Others have described the realities of what we are facing as “climate destruction” or “climate disruption” or as an “existential threat.”

Other media outlets have acknowledged The Guardian’s initiative and are considering making similar changes. But perhaps it is best to leave the last word to Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has inspired school strikes for climate around the globe, who said: “It’s 2019. Can we all now call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”

Robert Emmet Hernan, “It’s Time to Scare the Bejesus Out of People about Climate Change (Part 2) – More Bejesus Needed, But for Whom?” in ieBLOG section of www.irishenvironment.com (April 2017). bit.ly/2Ewl2RZ

Yes it is, if you follow the church of the Irish Farmers’ Association.

The Environmental Educational Unit of An Taisce (The National Trust for Ireland) runs a Green Schools Programme, which is part of an international movement known as Eco Schools. Green-Schools is an environmental education programme, environmental management system and award scheme that promotes whole school action towards a sustainable environment through the implementation of a Seven Step methodology. Green Schools, working with primary and secondary schools, is a long-standing, widely respected, and hugely successful programme. It also operates a Green Campus programme for colleges.

Recently it published its latest resource for teachers: a range of lesson plans, presentations, surveys and data on climate change and actions. Unfortunately it had the audacity to include one climate change action that explored the option of reducing meat and dairy consumption in schools, and it suggested that schools could include vegetarian or vegan potluck tasters or a #Meatless Monday campaign.

The suggestion raised the wrath of the church of the Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA), guardians of meat in Ireland. The IFA demanded that An Taisce withdraw the teacher resource pack including the suggestion of a possible meatless Monday. It further demanded that An Taisce’s involvement in the Green Schools Programme should be “reviewed” by the Department of Education and Science, claiming An Taisce was wrongfully giving out dietary/health advice.

First, the Greens School Programme is operated by the Environmental Education Unit, which was established in 1993 to ensure environmental education was a priority for the trust and to build on previous education initiatives and projects. The Unit operates the Green Schools Programme and any complaints would seem more appropriately directed there. But of course the IFA must believe it resonates politically to attack An Taisce rather than Green Schools.

Second, the health risks from eating meat and dairy products are hardly contested by the health community. The IFA attack on such a notion is like the tobacco industry denying the risks of smoking, and aggressively attacking anyone who would dare to oppose smoking in schools.

The drinks industry has enough sense not to attack anyone who promotes moderation in drinking. Indeed, the industry conducts public relation campaigns to warn the public against drinking too much alcohol: “Drink in moderation” or “Drink responsibly.” Just imagine the public uproar if the drinks industry aggressively attacked a civic organization for suggesting that drinking and driving might not be a good idea. And how sensible would it be for the drinks industry to demand the government investigate an organization for supporting not drinking and driving.

Besides the obvious health benefits from a balanced diet (which means less meat than is now consumed by almost every society), the adverse environmental effects from raising beef cows and processing meat is clear. Ireland is a laggard in large part because it is failing to meet its EU obligations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. That failure is driven in significant part because of the methane emissions from the agriculture sector that continues to expand.

We do not recall the IFA taking similar umbrage with the Catholic Church’s promotion of meatless Fridays. Somehow for the IFA not eating meat on Mondays is sacrilegious, while not eating meat on Fridays, or at least certain Fridays, is presumably pious.

The IFA has now been joined by a separate congregation, the Young Fine Gael, which has joined the chorus of castigating An Taisce for trying to combat climate change by advocating less meat in diets.

Is this the future of our youth? Lucky for us we have the Greens Schools Programme instilling sound, reasoned, responsible actions to fight climate change. Fine Gael will have to answer for its own children.

The Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment, Richard Bruton, did not take the bait from the IFA and instead defended the Green schools advice to reduce the amount of meat children eat. And An Taisce is in the good company of former President Mary Robinson who was attacked by the IFA for suggesting that eating less meat and more vegetables might be good for the planet. As well as for our individual health.

At the end of the day, the IFA and Young Fine Gael embarrassed themselves.

See “Meatless Mondays” in iePEDIA section of the current (May 2019) issue of irish environment.

“’We shouldn’t be defensive about debate led by young people’: Bruton defends stance on ‘Meatless Monday’ teaching pack,” The Journal (5 April 2019). bit.ly/2Vj5udZ

“Mary Robinson suggested that eating vegetables instead of meat might be good for the planet: The farming lobby busted an artery in response. They could have saved their artery by eating less meat and more vegetables.” ieBLOG in irish environment (1 Nov 2016). bit.ly/2RS32qa